Vinayak Builders v. Bd Garsar (Or) Successor

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersSpecial Civil Application No. 4139 of 2001 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2394 (Guj-HC) : (2012) 048 (I) ITCL 0071 : (2012) 346 ITR 0039 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Reassement- Notice under section 148-Reason to believe-Basis for reopening-Valuation report Assessee engaged in construction business constructed a business complex. Its assessment was made under section 143(1) for relevant assessment year. Thereafter, assessing officer issued notice under section 148 with a view that the DVO had estimated cost of construction at higher figure than that shown by the assessee and difference in valuation was to be added to the income of assessee. Held: The main ground for reopening of assessment was that the valuation officer had determined the cost of construction at a higher rate than that shown by the assessee in its books of account. The reasons recorded did not reflect that assessing officer had applied his mind to the facts of the case to ascertain as to that the assessee had expended more amount towards construction as stated in the valuation report. This case of the assessee was governed by the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) and, therefore, impugned notice was unsustainable. Income-tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Case Law Analysis :Asstt. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1530 (SC) : (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC). *Decision :* In favour of Assessee. A.Y. 2000-01 IN THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HARSHA DEVANI & H.B. ANTANI JJ. Vinayak Builders v. Bd Garsar (Or) Successor Special Civil Application No. 4139 of 2001 18 March, 2011 Petitioner by : S.N. Soparkar with Ms. Bhumi Thakore Respondent by : Mauna M. Bhatt SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersSpecial Civil Application No. 4139 of 2001
2012 TaxPub(DT) 2394 (Guj-HC) : (2012) 048 (I) ITCL 0071 : (2012) 346 ITR 0039

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Reassement- Notice under section 148-Reason to believe-Basis for reopening-Valuation report

Assessee engaged in construction business constructed a business complex. Its assessment was made under section 143(1) for relevant assessment year. Thereafter, assessing officer issued notice under section 148 with a view that the DVO had estimated cost of construction at higher figure than that shown by the assessee and difference in valuation was to be added to the income of assessee. Held: The main ground for reopening of assessment was that the valuation officer had determined the cost of construction at a higher rate than that shown by the assessee in its books of account. The reasons recorded did not reflect that assessing officer had applied his mind to the facts of the case to ascertain as to that the assessee had expended more amount towards construction as stated in the valuation report. This case of the assessee was governed by the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) and, therefore, impugned notice was unsustainable.

Income-tax Act, 1961 Section 148

Case Law Analysis :Asstt. CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1530 (SC) : (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC).

Decision : In favour of Assessee.

A.Y. 2000-01

IN THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT

HARSHA DEVANI & H.B. ANTANI JJ.

Vinayak Builders v. Bd Garsar (Or) Successor

Special Civil Application No. 4139 of 2001

18 March, 2011

Petitioner by : S.N. Soparkar with Ms. Bhumi Thakore

Respondent by : Mauna M. Bhatt